Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

“Creating together” – there is more than one term for this

City of Hamburg / City of Leipzig / City of Munich / Urban society in dialogue

Co-creation and co-design are key terms used to describe collaborative formats and processes. This article aims to illustrate that the distinction between the two concepts is not strict. Rather, there are fluid transitions that can vary depending on the context and application.

Based on our experience in the CUT project, criteria can be derived that can be used to classify formats within (participatory) processes. It becomes apparent that a format can rarely be clearly classified as purely co-creative or exclusively belonging to co-design. This spectrum and the corresponding classifications are illustrated by a digital tool we have developed.

Co-creation and co-design are two relevant terms for the work structure in the CUT project. There is a work package entitled “Co-creation” in sub-project 3, “Rethinking: Participation of urban society,” and a work package entitled “Citizen co-design” in sub-project 4, “Transformative experimental urban research.”

In order to differentiate between the two co-terms in the context of participation and within the CUT project, they were distinguished from each other in an initial phase. Co-creation focuses on the joint path and its design (process design), whereas co-design focuses on the design of an intended result, towards which the joint path is geared from the outset (design process). It should be noted that both are strong forms of collaboration that go beyond consultative and participatory citizen involvement (see Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation). Compared to conventional participation processes, both methods are characterized by a high degree of involvement and commitment on the part of those involved.

Practical experience in the CUT project with different formats and processes has led to clearer distinctions between the two co-terms. These observations ultimately resulted in the development of a digital tool for classifying methods, formats, or processes as “co-design” and “co-creation” according to defined criteria. The representation was based on a mixing console with sliders. Ultimately, it shows the percentage to which a process is “co-creative” or “co-designing.”

Figure 1: Digital tool with sliders.

Explanation of the six categories:

Co-creation and co-design are distinguished below solely in relation to each other.

  • Subject of integration: The subject refers to the goal to be achieved through co-creation and co-design. In the area of co-creation, the focus is on the process itself, for example, to make planning decisions, whereas co-design ultimately results in a concrete product—e.g., a digital tool, a development concept, or a joint project. Here, the path and the concrete output are contrasted.
  • Contribution of knowledge: The more intensively the actors participate in the process, the greater the contribution of knowledge. We generally assume that there are different types of knowledge. Co-design primarily involves expert/niche knowledge, whereas co-creation focuses on everyday/experiential knowledge. Knowledge sharing in co-design is a long-term process, whereas the co-creative process—usually consisting of several formats—tends to involve selective knowledge transfer. Another relevant factor is the diversity of knowledge bases that are brought together in a co-creative process.
  • Target group: The target group refers to the group of people to be involved, which in co-creative processes often represents a broader spectrum of urban society. Co-design processes draw on a small, select group of citizens or civil society organizations.
  • Impact: In co-design, the people involved make joint decisions that have a concrete impact on the outcome, meaning that the impact can be considered to be relatively high. In co-creation, on the other hand, the impact of the processes and topics is more guiding and directional. The decisions are then made by the authorized and legitimate persons/authorities.
  • Regulatory framework: The regulatory framework refers to agreements, guidelines, or criteria that open up or restrict the collaboration process in some way. This includes both external regulations and internal rules. In forms of co-creation, regulations usually relate directly to the process (e.g., who can contribute their knowledge, when, and in what form), whereas in co-design, the regulations tend to relate more to the jointly developed result (e.g., building regulations for urban use concepts or programming standards for software development) and not to the collaboration process.

Participation processes often consist of several formats in different forms. The individual formats and methods of the overall process should be considered separately. In the CUT project, some formats were examined in more detail in this regard and classified with the help of the digital tool:

  • Development of the data collector (blue)
  • Development of a role concept within the city administration (purple)
  • LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® method (red)
  • DIPAS user community (orange)
  • Specialist workshops in an urban planning competition – Matthäikirchhof (yellow)
  • Ideas workshop on the north of Munich (green)
Figure 2: Localized formats from the CUT project.
The Partner Cities
Funded by